Letters

Last week, a reader who lives in Bridgehampton wrote a Letter to the Editor discussing the unsightly large homes being built in Bridgehampton, and she placed particular emphasis on the fact that these homes are increasing her property taxes by increasing the value of her home [“Paying The Price,” Letters, December 10].

I would like to point out how this is not true, with respect to the largest portion of her property taxes, which would be for our Bridgehampton School.

The reader needs to look at the “tax rate.” All of these large homes have actually decreased the tax rate for all residents. In 2005, Bridgehampton School appropriated $7.6 million in taxes, and the tax rate was $2.75 per $1,000 of assessed value. That means that taxes on a $1 million home were $2,750.

In 2014-15, Bridgehampton School appropriated $10.6 million in taxes, and the tax rate was $1.67 per $1,000 of assessed value. That means the owner of a $1 million home paid $1,675. In 2019-20, the district appropriated $16 million, and the tax rate was $1.81 per $1,000 of assessed value. That means the owner of a $1 million home paid $1,810 in taxes.

All of the above means that between 2005 and 2015, the tax rate went down drastically, even though spending increased quite significantly. Why was that? It was mostly because of these large homes that the reader discussed.

During these 15 years, the assessed value of all homes in Bridgehampton increased from $3.4 billion to $8.7 billion! Now, it is true that, over time, the same million-dollar home probably experienced an increase in its assessed value, perhaps to $1.5 million. In this case, the tax rate of $1.67 still would only equal taxes of $2,505, compared with $2,750 in 2005. But for me, my assessed value went down between 2005 and 2015.

It is quite clear that spending at the Bridgehampton School has increased quite a lot, while the student count has not — from $7.6 million, to $10.6 million, to $16 million. And, yet, the only way that our Bridgehampton tax rate could go down is for all those huge homes to shoulder a greater and greater share of the tax burden (and, to a lesser extent, the fact that homes in general in Bridgehampton have gone up in value).

I’m not saying that I like homes that appear disproportionate in size to their land, or to the neighbors around them. Having participated in such an endeavor, I am no longer so keen on large houses on small parcels.

But I am saying that this generalization regarding taxes is not nearly so simply as last week’s letter writer might believe.

Jenice Delano

Sagaponack